PDA

View Full Version : Do you believe in the Creation of the World by the Gods or Evolution?



Wotanimus
Tuesday, May 17th, 2005, 09:45 PM
Do you believe in the creation of the world by the gods or what else, or to evolution from the " cold" materia?
I believe that they are both exists ( special for the man ) .
What do you believe? and why? :pope :valkyrie :jew :osama
( Always the truth is in the middle ) .

Blutwölfin
Tuesday, May 17th, 2005, 11:30 PM
Well, when I was younger I would have said: It's definitely evolution. This is science, science can be proved, science is the only truth. I do only believe in what I can understand, what I can see, touch, smell. There never ever has been a god, taking a chunk of loam, forming a human body, breathing at it and - boom - there were Men.

Nowadays, it has become more difficult to me. Of course, I still believe in evoltion and not in the creation preached by the Christians, but I am more open for some let's say huge ideas. The idea of a divine source, from which everything comes and to which everything goes. The idea of a start made by someone - or something.

Not that easy to explain. Anyway. I read the book "Vatan - Pfad des Nordens" (which means "Path of the North" in English) and this opened up my mind. Unfortunately it's not yet translated in English, but I think the Thule-Black-Sun-thing is not far away from the Vatan.

Gorm the Old
Wednesday, May 18th, 2005, 04:15 AM
"Explaining" anything by a miracle shuts off all further inquiry and discussion. It is one of the aims of science, and specifically the aim of historical geology, to explain how the world came to be as it is. Creationism denies the legitimacy of this entire line of inquiry. Accorting to Creationism, the world didn't come to be as it is, it was created as it is. The creation was a miracle and miracles can't be questioned or investigated. This is why "creation science" is an oxymoron. The dogmatism of creationism is anti-scientific. Historical geology is older than the theory of evolution and the concept of evolution is not essential to historical geology. It is widely accepted by stratigraphers, paleontologists, and geochronologists because it has proved to be useful and is consistent with the data from these fields of study. The succession of animal life forms revealed by the stratigraphic record was explained by a series of episodes of animal creation before Darwin and Wallace proposed organic evolution and this explanation did no violence to the facts or the principles of geologic history. However, the concept of organic evolution was more fruitful, in terms of predictability than special creation, and therefore came to be preferred.

Sigel
Wednesday, May 18th, 2005, 02:19 PM
I go for evolution, although I'm sure we do not yet have all the facts. :jew :pope :osama love to use science to justify their doctrines, but they move the goal posts around to fit current trends.
When the earth WAS flat, they didn't like any dissenters.
Now it's spherical, that's fine - part of god's plan!
Atoms - all made by God, String Theory... er God again etc. etc.
In my experience it can get quite tedious and pointless trying to debate this with them.

WotansKrieger
Thursday, May 19th, 2005, 06:32 AM
Well scientists have never found a link with us to apes and im not sure but as far as I know they haven’t been able to link any species with another. Also evolution is just a theory and hasn’t been proven. Im my opinion science is a faith in a way, science cant prove how the universe came to be it cant explain how the earth was made or how life started all it can do is give us a theory which to me is no different than a myth.

We are in the low stages of the Great year cycle so most people can only understand things they can see, touch, or feel this is why science is so big right now, a lot of people cant comprehend things on a spiritual level.

So id say im leaning towards creation, depending how you look at it our ancestors explanation and the explanation of science isn’t all that different. :valkyrie

morfrain_encilgar
Thursday, May 19th, 2005, 07:27 AM
Well scientists have never found a link with us to apes and im not sure but as far as I know they haven’t been able to link any species with another.

What about Ororrin, Ardipithecus, Australopithecus and the rest? Its all a sequence.

But because its a political issue now, theres another side to this, now. We all know secularists are twisting this as a way to attack the spiritual. To me theyre worse than anything on the religious right, and the word secular comes from "of the age", in other words it means materialism.

Wotanimus
Friday, May 20th, 2005, 10:35 PM
I believe very much to the neo-platonic theory that the world is creating always and even now and in every second by the god.
Mainster Eckart said that it is not one moment just of the creation but creation is exist always.
Maybe time is an illusion.

Gorm the Old
Saturday, May 21st, 2005, 01:52 AM
Time is vastly more complicated than I, at least, had ever realized. I, also, once suggested that time does not exist, that it is merely an illusion arising from man's short-term memory. A friend, a chemist, pointed out that time is necessary for causality because causes, whether material, formal, efficient, or final, must precede effects. Granted: quantum indeterminism violates causality, but most of our experience is comprehensible only in terms of causality (perhaps because we are, ourselves, causal agents). However, this naive causalistic view of time gives rise to logical problems. Stated rather simplistically, inasmuch as the future hasn't happened and the past is over and done with, only the present exists. However, the present can have no duration. It is only the boundary between the unborn future and the dead past. Though we say that the "arrow of time" flies from the past into the future, events move from the potential future to the realized and completed past. It would seem that the future must be totally conditional. Causes operating in the present (which has no duration) effect consequences which are potential in the future, but determined by past and present causes. However, must not events, however contingent they may be upon pre-existent, i.e. already past, causes, already exist in the future in order to pass from the future through the interface we call the present into the immediate past which is the world of our perception and cognition ? This boggles my mind. How can the events which have not happened exist in the future to be acted upon by whatever "present causes" mould their potentiality into that reality which is realized as they pass into the past ? Where do these events come from ? How do they come to exist, even if only as potentialities ? Frankly, I do not understand this. This problem is far from new. The Buddhists (who, for some unfathomable reason, call events "dharmas"), recognized that events pass from the future to the past and concluded that there are no persistent entities (the doctrine of anatman), that "dharmas' come into and go out of existence constantly, but nothing persists. It has always seemed to me that this is inconsistent with the doctrine of reincarnation which they espouse. If there be no persistent entities, what is there to reincarnate ? St. Thomas Acquinas, reasoning from the same premises, concluded that the realization of previously potential entities as they pass from the future to the past proves the existence of the immortal soul. I can't follow his reasoning either. The modern physicists have muddied the waters still further by reifying concepts. Time and space (or that illegitimate hybrid, space-time, which I call a lambchop-melon, a hybrid of two things which have nothing to do with each other) are not THINGS. They are concepts. Space has only geometrical properties because it is an abstraction. They claim that space can turn, spontaneously, into matter. This is as preposterous as claiming that the Pythagorean Theorem can turn into ultraviolet radiation. Also, they have given physical properties to time WHICH HAS NONE. It is a CONCEPT, not a THING ! Unfortunately, theoretical physicists have lost the ability to determine that they are talking nonsense. IF time and space have physical as well as geometrical and durational properties, THEN, their theoretical models of reality will work. What they have forgotten is that Nature is not obliged to conform to their theoretical models. It is the models which must conform to reality. The more deeply we inquire into reality, the less we find that we know or understand.

morfrain_encilgar
Saturday, May 21st, 2005, 04:38 AM
I believe very much to the neo-platonic theory that the world is creating always and even now and in every second by the god.
Mainster Eckart said that it is not one moment just of the creation but creation is exist always.

And creation vs evolution doesnt make sense if you accept that outlook on the universe. Its a matter of emanationism vs creationism (creationism in the sense of an artificer figure).

Dr. Solar Wolff
Saturday, May 21st, 2005, 05:36 AM
A friend who is an Odinist told me that his religion does not oppose evolution and in fact strongly supports it.

WotansKrieger
Saturday, May 21st, 2005, 06:50 AM
What about Ororrin, Ardipithecus, Australopithecus and the rest? Its all a sequence.

But because its a political issue now, theres another side to this, now. We all know secularists are twisting this as a way to attack the spiritual. To me theyre worse than anything on the religious right, and the word secular comes from "of the age", in other words it means materialism.

Alot of thoes finds are hoaxes aswell, im sure you could find info about it by doing a search.

morfrain_encilgar
Saturday, May 21st, 2005, 07:18 AM
A friend who is an Odinist told me that his religion does not oppose evolution and in fact strongly supports it.

Well most religions dont, and most Christians dont. To most people Creationism is a wierd American thing whats hard to understand for the rest of us. I used to be disgusted by it until I saw the Christians were provoked into takng this extreme position by extreme secularism.

When the big government ruled the Christian states had to fall in line with Secular states after Roe vs Wade, it woke them up that Secularists had declared war on Christian values. Its no wonder they started with "Creation Science" because secularists were making a fuss over Genesis.

morfrain_encilgar
Saturday, May 21st, 2005, 07:29 AM
Alot of thoes finds are hoaxes aswell, im sure you could find info about it by doing a search.

Only according to fundies, they are.

WK, I really sympathise with those people because they just want to be left alone, but it doesnt mean creationism is science.

Zyklop
Saturday, May 21st, 2005, 09:09 AM
Refuting Creationist claims:

http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/list.html

morfrain_encilgar
Saturday, May 21st, 2005, 09:30 AM
Refuting Creationist claims:

http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/list.html

Well that sites what Im talking about, look how they weave politics with the facts.

"When properly understood, evolution refutes racism. Before Darwin, people used typological thinking for living things, considering different plants and animals to be their distinct "kinds." This gave rise to a misleading conception of human races, in which different races are thought of as separate and distinct. Darwinism helps eliminate typological thinking and with it the basis for racism."

"Genetic studies show that humans are remarkably homogeneous genetically, so all humans are only one biological race. Evolution does not teach racism; it teaches the very opposite."

"Although creationism is not inherently racist, it is based upon and inseparable from religious bigotry, and religious bigotry is no less hateful and harmful than racism."

"Genocide and racism existed long before Darwin. Obviously, they did not need any contribution from Darwinism. In many instances, such as the Crusades and the Spanish conquest of Central America, religion was explicitly invoked to justify them."

"One need not manufacture myths to show a hostility of religion towards science. The church's reaction to heliocentrism is another well known example, as is Wells himself."

anaktas
Saturday, May 21st, 2005, 09:35 AM
I believe in science and evolution. However, everything natural around us is so perfect...that's why I am an agnosticist. There may be something divine that created all these.

P.S. Certainly not Jhvh. :yay :jew

Gorm the Old
Saturday, May 21st, 2005, 02:13 PM
Basically, creation vs evolution reduces to a simple dichotomy: creation as a unique event resulting in a self-sustaining system undergoing internal change over time in accordance with the laws of nature vs continuous and/or repeated intervention by the creator. The alternative that creation occurred very recently and produced the universe as it is today does not account for the facts. The extreme antiquity of the universe can be proved beyond any reasonable doubt. We could not see any other galaxies unless the universe were at least as old as their distance in light years.

Vanir
Saturday, May 21st, 2005, 03:33 PM
I believe in no supernatural agency or power, and do not need to. The Earth beneath my feet, and the knowledge I shall someday melt back into it are the bedrock of my self-belief.
The Physical world is all, but this is not a limiting reality to me. I find this World that the Laws of Physics has agitated out of a few elements in a vacuum breath-taking in depth, scope, majesty and beauty, and we barely scratch the surface.

My 2 cents.

anaktas
Saturday, May 21st, 2005, 05:19 PM
I believe in no supernatural agency or power, and do not need to. The Earth beneath my feet, and the knowledge I shall someday melt back into it are the bedrock of my self-belief.
The Physical world is all, but this is not a limiting reality to me. I find this World that the Laws of Physics has agitated out of a few elements in a vacuum breath-taking in depth, scope, majesty and beauty, and we barely scratch the surface.

My 2 cents.
I mainly agree.

Wotanimus
Saturday, May 21st, 2005, 06:01 PM
And creation vs evolution doesnt make sense if you accept that outlook on the universe. Its a matter of emanationism vs creationism (creationism in the sense of an artificer figure).NOTHING is out of the universe.

anaktas
Saturday, May 21st, 2005, 09:18 PM
NOTHING is out of the universe.
How can you be so sure?

Wotanimus
Saturday, May 21st, 2005, 11:24 PM
How can you be so sure?And what will be that out of the universe and where this "thing" will be?

Zyklop
Sunday, May 22nd, 2005, 06:03 AM
And what will be that out of the universe and where this "thing" will be? The inflationary cosmos theory (PDF)
(http://www.stanford.edu/%7Ealinde/1032226.pdf)

Zyklop
Sunday, May 22nd, 2005, 06:08 AM
I believe in science and evolution. However, everything natural around us is so perfect.. Well, if it wouldn´t be "perfect" we wouldn´t be able to see it at all because all imperfect mutations disappear sooner or later.
Note that for each perfect specimen billions of imperfect organisms had to die.

Siegfried
Sunday, May 22nd, 2005, 08:38 AM
29+ Evidences for Macroevolution (http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/)
The Scientific Case for Common Descent

alphaknave
Sunday, October 16th, 2005, 03:40 AM
I hate how it has to be one or the other with people. This crazy talk about "intelligent design" and the ridiculous controversy of "Should this be taught in schools?" It is ridiculous. The answer is simple: We were designed. We were designed by nature. Nature evolved us into what we are today. The forces of the world, and the rules of the universe allowed us to exist, therefore, "created" us. These forces are the Gods at work. They molded us into useful beings. Science is proven, but their conclusions are often void. Christianity is based on mindless hope and great imagination. It is too literal and teaches blind narrow vision lies.

Preußischer_Schatten
Wednesday, November 30th, 2005, 12:22 PM
All I have to say is http://www.venganza.org/

:D

Frans_Jozef
Wednesday, November 30th, 2005, 12:53 PM
God hasn't created anything, put it on the account of the Demiurg. The
gods or God are impassible, they rest in their own immututable,
transcendental character.

Hence the hybris of mankind to be as "God" and create to dominate and
be praised for its manufactures. Our trademark to "progress",
"dominate" and conquer by hook and crook to have a palmares of
achievements, as well our insidious ways to manipulate and mould
people/individuals to our liking, is but a continuation of the works
by the Demiurg on a lower plane.

Epicurus, the Buddha and the Cathars were right, the Creationists and
Theists are only the bloody naieve attorneys of the Demiurg.

On the other hand, everything what exists might be a monade in a force
field of monades and created out of nothing and only by iself.
That's why unpredictability is one of the most consistent determinants
in the Universe, which makes all things unique and unreducible to
simple answers like an origin of origins.

Nature is hooded, says Heraclitus. Science might not provide all
answers, but relying on presumptions of faith is shaky at best and not
very truthful nor intelligent.

Gorm the Old
Wednesday, November 30th, 2005, 03:39 PM
This is an old thread. Why are we re-hashing it ?

Weg
Wednesday, November 30th, 2005, 07:21 PM
Why not?...

klokkwerx
Tuesday, December 6th, 2005, 01:34 AM
Do you believe in the creation of the world by the gods or what else, or to evolution from the " cold" materia?
I believe that they are both exists ( special for the man ) .
What do you believe? and why? :pope :valkyrie :jew :osama
( Always the truth is in the middle ) .
My approach to it is: I think the Gods used a form of evolution to create Midgard, the first part of Norse creation is that Ginnungagap had two opposing factors, Muspellheim (fire) and Niflheim (ice), a recipe for something to happen; similar to the big bag theory?